Ambiguity: Kindred's Most Powerful Literary Device
In Kindred, Octavia Butler presents a multitude of characters in the Weylin plantation, each with their own trajectories and experiences. However, Butler takes great care as to prevent readers from overgeneralizing or imposing stereotypes upon characters, offering room for multiple perspectives to be validated without any one perspective dominating over the others. This is especially clear in context of Dana's time travel experiences, Kevin's patroller-lover duality, and Rufus' role as both protector and oppressor.
In the Weylin plantation, even the slave-master relationship is complicated. Dana observes that the slaves seemed to "like [Rufus], hold him in contempt, and fear him all at the same time. This confused me because I felt just about the same mixture of emotions for him myself...But then, slavery of any kind fostered strange relationships" (Butler 229-230). Even overseers had a complex relationship between themselves, their masters, and the slaves. This is partially due to the novel's setting in antebellum Maryland: It's still a slave state, but isn't a cotton plantation in the deep south. While the Weylin family and the slaves live in close proximity, it is still slavery.
Another example of Butler's intentional ambiguity is in the impact of the main characters' time travel on their present lives. Dana's life is irreversibly changed from 19th century, returning from her final trip without an entire arm. The scars of her past are very much real, and every moment she is reminded about her entire ordeal with Rufus. However, Kevin returns mostly unharmed despite spending significantly more time in the 19th century. Dana describes his first attempt driving: "Kevin tried driving--his first time after five years of horses and buggies. He said the traffic confused him, made him more nervous than he could see any reason for. Then he put the car in the garage and left it there" (Butler 244). While Kevin has trouble acclimating, the damage from the past is completely reversible. Dana's is not. Dana and Kevin's contrasting experiences highlight how the past can have varying impacts on people living in the present.
While character dynamics in Kindred are complex, there are still arguments to be made. However, Butler's careful depiction of each and every character actively prevents readers from overgeneralizing the story to broader themes of antebellum slavery. There is no one objectively correct perspective--even Dana is flawed--and so every character's experiences add depth to the novel. Butler's diversity of experiences creates much more depth than any one perspective could offer. That's the power of Kindred.
Very intriguing post. It does seem that Butler's usage of ambiguity is deliberate in stressing the multi-dimensional aspect of slavery. There is no one narrative to recount its effect on various communities. And Kindred, with so many conflicting narratives and personalities, illustrates that.
ReplyDeleteThis post delves into the unique perspectives garnered throughout the book. As you mentioned, the relationship between Rufus and his slaves are a weird blend of positive and negative given the master-slave relation of the time. Butler gives different takes on the South to insure that all the characters don't just naturally blend into the 19th century slave-culture.
ReplyDeleteOutstanding blog post Bruce!! I agree with you about how there is not a single narrative that can truly cover all the horrors of slavery and its effects on multiple communities. I think Kindred does a great job at using that idea to create the story it is today. Keep up the outstanding work!!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. By avoiding caricatures, Butler manages to do a commentary on the dynamics of slavery just as complicated and complex as the reality of history, avoiding the simplification that enables disconnection from the events that happened and prevents immersion into history.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most powerful illustrations of this "strange relationship" between Rufus and the enslaved people on his plantation is reflected when Dana realizes that, even as they "hate" and "fear" him in many ways, they still are in a position where they must wish for him to persist as the owner and overseer of the plantation--because if he goes bankrupt and has to sell the place, their families will inevitably be broken up, and everything they know will be lost. So they are in the paradoxical but necessary position of hoping and wishing for his good health and financial success, because any stability or "family" they are able to experience is fully contingent on him and his whims. He might sell any of them off at any time, and he IS willing to break up families (and to threaten to do so, as a form of manipulation). But his bankruptcy would ENSURE that they are all sold off. And ironically, by finally killing him, it's clear that Dana may NOT have done any favors to the people living on the plantation. We have to assume Nigel, Rufus's "friend" from childhood, would have been sold off upon Rufus's death, likely separated from his wife and children.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of the character ambiguity arises from Dana's fractured observation of 19th century characters. For example, Dana has a very abbreviated, incomplete outlook on Rufus' character development because she only interacts with him every few "years". This creates a prevailing sense of unpredictability and confusion surrounding his actions/motives.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteoopsie daisy
DeleteThis is a very interesting take on how the ambiguity in Kindred is used to prevent overgeneralization and stereotypes in the portrayal of characters. Butler's intentional ambiguity adds layers and depth to the narrative, making it possible for many different perceptions of this book. I find it especially interesting your comparison between Dana's irreversible damage from the past and Kevin's reversible one. It adds even more depth in the sense that different people may be affected differently by the same historical events.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Butler uses ambiguity as a tool to her advantage in this book, to make the reader feel more conflicted and show how not everything is completely black and white. Great post!
ReplyDeleteButler certainly leaves many aspects of Kindred up to the reader’s interpretation. I noticed Butler’s intentional ambiguity regarding Dana’s impact on the past; the birth of Aaron and Miriam is seemingly revised and the whereabouts of Nigel and the slaves of Weylin plantation are entirely ambiguous. I think Butler’s way of ending the novel works to prevent overgeneralizations of the novel itself by giving it a high level of ambiguity, it is hard to pinpoint what the overarching message of Kindred is. Nice blog post, Bruce.
ReplyDelete